Did Wendy’s Manager Cook up Way to Bypass Exclusivity Rules?

What Do You Think?

Can an employee who suffers mental health injury at work sue his employer for monetary damages, or is his only relief the state workers’ compensation act? A Pennsylvania case addressed whether a Wendy’s manager could get around the act’s exclusive remedy provision by citing the “personal animus” exception.

The general manager had a mild heart attack and was hospitalized. When he returned from medical leave, the company demoted him to assistant manager, which came with a side of lower pay, fewer hours, and fewer advancement opportunities.

He sued Wendy’s for intentional infliction of emotional distress. He claimed his employer’s actions caused him severe emotional distress, manifesting in anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances .It was not only the demotion, he said, but the derogatory comments supervisors made about him in front of staff and the demeaning tasks they assigned him, he said. The circumstances damaged his mental health, he claimed, resulting in another hospitalization.

Wendy’s asked the court to dismiss the case. The employee’s only remedy for his injury was workers’ compensation, it argued.

The workers’ compensation act provides the exclusive remedy for all employees' work-related injuries, the court noted. The act thus generally bars claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of an employment relationship. 

There is a narrow "personal animus" or "third party attack" exception to that rule. The exception allows claims for employee injuries caused by the intentional conduct of third parties for reasons personal to the third party and not directed against the worker as an employee or because of his employment.

Could the employee proceed with an intentional infliction lawsuit?

A. No. His employer’s actions were directed at him as an employee.

B. Yes. Demoting the employee after a heart attack was so callous that it must have been personal.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Stevens. v . Phily Liv. Bacon, LLC, Nos. No. 24-CV-2467 (E.D. Pa. 04/11/25), which held that the employee’s exclusive remedy was workers’ compensation.

Need to know about exclusive remedy rules in your jurisdiction? Head to Simply Research

The key issue for determining whether the personal animus exception applies, the court stated, is whether the attack was motivated by personal reasons and was sufficiently unrelated to the work situation so as not to arise out of the employment relationship. When such an action qualifies, it often pre-dates the employment.

The employee here failed to show that the purported adverse actions Wendy’s took were wholly or nearly wholly personal. The company’s actions didn’t qualify for the personal animus exception.

“The conduct alleged by [the employee] — reducing his work hours, assigning undesirable tasks, and making derogatory comments — are all alleged to have been committed in connection with his employment, and are therefore barred by the PWCA,” the court wrote.

Share This Article: